Important Point – Section 38 of MRTP Act does not and cannot be read to mean that substantial right conferred upon owner of land or person interested under Section 127 is taken away.

VASANTI A NAIK, J.

1. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the reservation of the agricultural field of the petitioners bearing No.115/1 (Old) and New Gat No.87/1 of Mouza Digras for D.P. Road and Social Welfare Department has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the petitioners are entitled to use the land for the purpose of development, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the development plan.

3. The aforesaid land of the petitioners was reserved for the D.P. Road and Social Development Department by the final Development plan published on 01.08.1987. Since the land of the petitioners was not acquired for the purpose for which it was reserved for a period of more than ten years from the publication of the final Development plan, the petitioners served a purchase notice on the respondents, on 20.06.2001. No effective steps were taken by the respondents for the acquisition of the land, as required by the provisions of Section 127 of the Act, within a period of six months. Thereafter, when a Draft Development Plan was published on 01.11.2008 under section 26 read with Section 38 of the Act, the petitioners lodged a strong objection to the proposed reservation of their lands after the lapsing of reservation under Section 127(1). In pursuance of the objection and in view of the report of the Planning Committee, the respondent no.2 passed a resolution on 25.03.2010 for deleting the reservation of the land of the petitioners for Social Welfare Department. However, by the Revised Development Plan, dated 03.04.2012, the State Government again reserved the land of the petitioners for D.P. Road and Social Welfare Department, thereby impliedly rejecting the proposal of the Planning Committee and the respondent no.2 for deleting the reservation of the land for the Social Welfare Department. The petitioners have sought the aforesaid declaration on the premise that after the lapsing of the reservation in view of the admitted facts, the publication of a Revised Development Plan in respect of the land of the petitioners would be of no effect or consequence.

4. Shri Mehadia, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the reservation of the land of the petitioners for the purpose of D.P. Road and Social Welfare Department has lapsed since the respondent no.2 did not take any effective steps for the acquisition of the land within a period of six months from the date of service of the purchase notice. It is submitted that the purchase notice was served on the respondent no.2 on 20.06.2001 and it was necessary for the respondent no.2 to take effective steps for the acquisition of the land before 19.12.2001. It is stated that since no steps for the acquisition of the land were taken by the respondent no.2 at any point of time, it would be necessary to grant a declaration that the reservation of the land of the petitioners has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Act. It is stated that the petitioners were constantly pursuing the matter with the respondents in respect of the deemed lapsing and were constrained to file the petition in view of the reservation of the land of the petitioners in the Revised Development Plan, despite lapsing of reservation under Section 127(1).

5. Shri Khubalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent no.1, submitted that the petitioners would not be entitled to the declaration as they had not taken any steps in the matter of declaration in respect of lapsing for long and in the meanwhile, the State Government has published the revised Development plan on 03.04.2012. It is stated that since the petitioner has approached this Court after the publication of the revised Development plan on 03.04.2012, t